High Court Upholds Haryana Policy Permitting In-Service Doctors Without Rural Service To Compete For Reserved PG Seats

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in-service doctors need not have rendered two years' service in rural, remote or difficult areas before becoming eligible for admission to postgraduate medical courses against the 40% in-service quota in Haryana, so long as they execute a bond to serve such areas for five years after acquiring the degree. [2026 LL (PH) 262]

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of MBBS doctors who had sought to confine the in-service quota only to candidates with prior rural service to their credit.

The Court further upheld, as a valid classification under Article 14, the State's decision to grant full pay during the PG course only to those in-service doctors who have completed two years in rural or difficult areas, while extending to the rest only protection of lien, seniority and continuity of service without salary.

"The notification issued by the State categorically provides that such in-service doctors would have to execute a bond undertaking to serve the State Government for five years in rural/remote/difficult areas after acquiring such postgraduate qualification. The object of the State policy is to provide better medical facilities to the common masses in the State. Such objective is adequately achieved by the doctors executing the requisite bond to serve in such rural/remote/difficult areas for a period of five years," the bench said.

It added further that, "The State policy also carves out a distinction between those in-service doctors who have completed two years of posting in rural/remote/difficult areas and those who have not done so. For those who have actually worked in rural/remote/difficult areas for two years have been allowed to pursue postgraduate courses as in-service doctors with full salary along with all other available service benefits."

However, the Court clarified that,  those in-service doctors who have not rendered service in rural/remote/difficult areas have been denied salary during the period of their postgraduate study and the benefit to them is restricted to providing of lien and counting of services etc., without any salary to them.

The petitioners, qualified MBBS doctors registered with their respective State Medical Councils, sought admission to M.D./M.S. courses in Government, Government-aided and private medical institutions in Haryana for the Academic Session 2024-25 against the 40% State quota reserved for in-service candidates of the Haryana Civil Medical Services and Haryana Civil Dental Services, including those serving in ESIC-run hospitals and autonomous bodies of the State.

They sought directions restricting admission against those 40% seats only to candidates who had already rendered two years' service in rural, remote or difficult areas of the State. They also challenged Clause 2(2) of the notification dated 02.09.2024, which permitted all in-service HCMS/HCDS doctors to apply against the in-service seats irrespective of rural posting, and Clause 1 of the General Conditions of the notification dated 25.07.2024, under which an NOC could be granted to any in-service doctor who had completed two years of regular satisfactory service and cleared probation.

Although admissions for the 2024-25 session had already concluded, the Bench chose to decide the matter on merits, observing that similar policies had been framed in subsequent years and that the issues, being recurring in nature, required adjudication.

The petitioners argued that in Constitution Bench decision in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, (2021) 6 SCC 568, in which the Supreme Court expressed the expectation that statutory instruments providing for a separate in-service channel should make minimum service in rural, remote or difficult areas mandatory before a candidate could seek admission through that channel, and also thereafter.

It was contended that prior rural service alone justifies the separate entry, and relied on a Single Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tania Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, WPA No. 1582 of 2022.

The Haryana Government and the private respondents opposed the petition, contending that the power to create a separate channel flows from Entry 25 of List III and stands recognised in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association. It was urged that the policy already requires every in-service doctor securing admission to execute a bond to serve rural, remote or difficult areas for five years, which subserves the object of the separate channel.

The State also defended the two categories it had created, full pay for those with two years' rural service, and service protection without pay for the rest, as a classification with a definite purpose.

Tracing the long-running controversy from State of UP v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749, which had held that the State lacked jurisdiction to create a separate in-service channel to its overruling by the Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association, the Bench held that the State's competence to provide a separate source of entry for in-service doctors under Entry 25, List III can no longer be doubted.

Referring to Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353, and to the co-extensive nature of executive power under Article 162, the Court held that the State was well within its jurisdiction to issue executive instructions creating such a channel.

The Court declined to read Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association as imposing a mandatory precondition on the Haryana policy. It observed that the Supreme Court's observation was based on a reading of the Regulations placed before it, whereas the policy contained in the notification dated 02.09.2024 was not under challenge in that case.

Since the State policy requires every in-service candidate to execute a bond to serve rural, remote or difficult areas for five years after obtaining the postgraduate qualification, the object of the policy improved medical facilities for the common masses through better-qualified doctors in rural areas is, in the Court's view, adequately achieved.

The Bench held that the differentiation between in-service doctors who have completed two years of rural or difficult-area posting and those who have not is founded on intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus with the object of improving rural healthcare, and does not offend Article 14. It relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gopal D. Tirthani, (2003) 7 SCC 83, for the proposition that in-service doctors form a distinct class that may legitimately be treated differently from open-category candidates.

The Court held that the wisdom of the State in specifying the manner of admission for in-service doctors cannot be questioned unless the policy is shown to contravene a constitutional provision or to be manifestly arbitrary or unjust, a ground the petitioners had failed to make out.

It opined that, "the policy of the State, therefore, makes out a valid distinction between the two classes of in-service doctors by providing regular salary to those who have already rendered rural/remote/difficult service for two years and by restricting the benefit of continuity in service alone to other in-service doctors who have not rendered two years' service in rural/remote/difficult areas."

The bench made it clear that, "the distinction drawn between two sets of in-service doctors is based on intelligible differentia and has specific object to achieve i.e., providing of improved medical facilities in rural/difficult areas. The distinction drawn between the two categories of in-service doctors i.e., those who have already rendered two years of rural/difficult area service and those who have not, is thus valid and does not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Holding that the notification dated 02.09.2024 is neither beyond the legislative competence of the State nor an encroachment upon the field occupied by Central legislation, and that it does not violate Article 254 or suffer from manifest arbitrariness, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Gunjan Nehra and others v. State of Haryana and others

Appearance: Mr. B. S. Rana, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners;

Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. AG, Haryana, with Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana;

Mr. Ravi Sharma and Ms. Megha Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No. 5;

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No. 6-Union of India; Mr. Aditya Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No. 7; Mr. L. K. Narang, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 8 and 9; Mr. Aman Nain, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 11, 16, 17, 20 and 21; Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 22 to 62

Click here to read order